Armed Forces: Low Flying

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Derek Twigg) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I have today placed in the Library of the House a revised report giving a detailed account of the low-flying training that has taken place in the UK low-flying system for the training year April 2007 to March 2008.
	The original report placed on 21 July 2008 was found to contain a number of printing errors which have been corrected.
	The report can be viewed on the MoDs website:
	http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/WhatWeDo/AirSafetyandAviation/LowFlying/

Armed Forces: Service Children's Education

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Derek Twigg) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The chief executive of Service Childrens Education has been set the following key targets for 2008-09.
	Key Target 1
	To match England performance at key stages 1, 2 and 3 in all subject elements.
	Key Target 2
	In each of the key stages 1, 2 and 3 exceed national (England) achievement by 3 per cent in a majority of the 12 subject elements.
	At the higher levels of attainment (that is, level 3+ at key stage1, level 5+ at key stage 2, level 6+ at key stage 3) match or exceed the national level of performance in 10 of the 12 subject elements.
	Key Target 3
	At GCSE level, improve the percentage of pupils achieving 5 or more A* to C (including mathematics and English) from 2007-08 (45 per cent).
	At GCSE level, achieve an average points score within 10 points of the national (England) capped upper quartile figure.
	At GCE A-level, achieve 72 per cent of pupil entries obtaining grades A to C.
	Key Target 4
	SCE to achieve a notional position in the English local authority league tables, within the leading 25 (of 150) LAs at each of key stages 1, 2 and 3.
	Key Target 5
	To achieve grade 3, or above, for the overall effectiveness of the school in 100 per cent of schools inspected, and grade 2, or above, in not less than 66 per cent of schools inspected.
	Key Target 6
	To achieve an overall parental customer satisfaction rating of at least 85 per cent in the 2008-09 parental survey.

Child Maintenance

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (James Plaskitt) has made the following Statement.
	As honourable Members are aware, the provisions of the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 will enable the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission to introduce a range of new collection and enforcement tools in order to improve compliance.
	These new powers include the ability to use a deduction from earnings order (DEO) as a basic method of collecting child maintenance. Up to now, the Child Support Agency has used a DEO in circumstances where other suitable payment arrangements cannot be agreed or have broken down.
	Compliance rates for DEOs are second only to those for direct debits and, as we made clear during the passage of the new legislation, the intention is for the commission to pilot the use of DEOs as the primary method of collection for employed non-resident parents.
	The design and timing of the pilot will need to be carefully planned so it cannot begin immediately. But the commission is determined to improve compliance as soon as possible in order to get more money flowing to children. It is therefore intending to make use of the new power through regulations, which will enable the commission to implement an interim approach to the collection of child maintenance in order to increase compliance.
	This will mean that non-resident parents who have not already agreed a method of paying their child maintenance will be offered the choice of either a direct debit or a deduction from earnings orderthe payment methods with the best compliance rates. An alternative method of payment will be used only where the non-resident parent cannot pay by direct debit and there is good reason for a deduction from earnings order not to be used. There will be a right of appeal to a magistrates court (or sheriff in Scotland) against a decision by the commission that there is no good reason for a DEO not to be used.
	The change, which the commission plans to introduce by the end of this year, will not affect those non-resident parents who pay their maintenance direct to the parent with care or who have their child maintenance payments deducted from their benefit. Non-resident parents who have already agreed a payment method with the commission before the change is introduced will be able to continue to pay by their chosen method.

Courts: Front-office Services

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Maria Eagle) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	On 15 September 2008, the board of Her Majestys Courts Service, with my approval, has published a new framework for the provision of front-office services in civil courts.
	The new framework consists of national minimum standards for front-office service provision and operational guidance to local court managers. The framework does not affect court hearings or the future of particular court buildings.
	The minimum standards ensure a coherent but flexible system for providing front office services across the county court network. They guarantee appropriate access to the full range of services currently only delivered through the medium of a full-time public court counter. It will allow local HMCS managers some flexibility, working with the judiciary, to provide services through other and more innovative channels that are tailored to the needs and expectations of the local community, as well as improving overall efficiency and service standards.
	The national minimum standards set a level below which the provision of front-office services must not fall and introduce safeguards to ensure that any alteration to current arrangements do not deny access to services or create an additional burden for the public. An appropriate level of local consultation, including Members of Parliament, will be required for all significant alterations.
	Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office. The framework document is also available on the Ministry of Justice website at www.justice.gov.uk

Data Loss

Lord West of Spithead: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jacqui Smith) has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I would like to update the House on the loss of sensitive data by PA Consulting and to inform the House that the Home Office has terminated the contract with PA Consulting that covered the handling of these data.
	On 19 August, PA Consulting formally notified the Home Office of the loss of a data stick containing sensitive information relating to the JTrack system which PA manage under contract to the Home Office. I was informed the same day and immediately initiated an inquiry into this incident, undertaken by the Home Office Security Unit with advice and support from the Metropolitan Police. The incident inquiry has now been completed. The Information Commissioner and Cabinet Office have been kept fully informed. I have also today sent a full report to the Information Commissioner and have placed a copy in the House Library.
	JTrack is the operational system used by the police and Crown Prosecution Service as part of the Governments prolific and other priority offender (PPO) programme. The data on JTrack relate to prisoners and other offenders in England and Wales.
	The inquiry found that data were transferred to PA from the Home Office in a secure manner. These data were not handled securely by a PA employee on their premises. Data were downloaded to a data stick. The data stick was used to transfer data between computers on the PA premises and was not encrypted or managed appropriately. The data stick went missing and, despite extensive searches, has not been found. This was a clear breach of the robust terms of the contract covering security and data handling.
	Based on the findings of the inquiry, the Home Office have decided to terminate this contract. My officials are currently working with PA to take this work back in house without affecting the operation of JTrack or the PPO programme. Data transfers to PA for JTrack were suspended immediately following the incident, data handling has now been transferred to the Home Office and the system is fully operational. Other PA activity, such as system maintenance and user training, will be transferred by December.
	We are reviewing our other contracts with PA, specifically from a data-handling and security perspective. Lessons learnt from this incident more generally will be applied to working with suppliers on contracts involving sensitive data.
	Together with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Ministry of Justice, we have undertaken careful assessments of the potential risks to individuals of this incident. The risk to public safety is assessed as low. The risk to individuals whose data were lost is also assessed as low. Appropriate measures are in place for individuals seeking information about the data held on them.
	The Home Office has been very active in implementing the findings of the Hannigan data handling review but, as with other incidents of data loss, the Government are reviewing the circumstances of this incident and will ensure that any lessons, including in relation to strengthening the delivery chain, are incorporated in the ongoing programme of work to provide support and guidance to departments on information assurance.
	Given the seriousness of this incident, I believe it is important both to provide external assurance to the public on our response to the incident and also to enable others to benefit from the lessons learnt. Hence I have commissioned Dr Stephen Hickey to undertake an external scrutiny of our response. I will be placing a report of his findings in the House Library in due course.

Department for Work and Pensions: Stakeholder Receptions

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (James Plaskitt) has made the following Statement.
	I have today published a list of receptions hosted by Department for Work and Pensions Ministers in the 2007-08 financial year.
	The total cost of receptions held for the financial year 2007-08 was £368.00.
	
		
			 Date Event Number invited Host 
			 19 February 2008 Introductory reception with key Working Age stakeholders 27 James Purnell 
			 5 March 2008 Introductory reception with key Pensions and Disability stakeholders 27 James Purnell

EU: Budget Ecofin

Lord Davies of Oldham: My honourable friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Kitty Ussher) has made the following Written Statement.
	On 17 July 2008, the UK permanent representative to the EU represented the UK at the Budget Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN).
	The council conducted its first reading of the EC budget for 2009. The council adopted a draft budget that was supported by all member states.
	During a conciliation meeting between the council and the European Parliament, six joint statements relating to the budget were agreed. These concerned: structural and cohesion funds and rural development 2007-13 programmes; recruitment in relation to the 2004 and 2007 enlargement; the EU solidarity fund; the European globalisation adjustment fund and emergency aid reserve; implementation of the budget in 2009; and an update of administration financial programming. In addition, the council agreed further statements on payment appropriations and evaluation of agencies.
	The Government are supportive of these statements, which call for a greater degree of transparency, sound financial management and budget discipline in the areas they concern.

EU: Finance

Lord Davies of Oldham: My honourable friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Kitty Ussher) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I am today laying before Parliament the annual European Community Finances White Paper Statement on the 2008 EC Budget and Measures to Combat Fraud and Financial Mismanagement (Cm 7371). This White Paper is the 28th in the series. It gives details of revenue and expenditure in the 2008 EC budget and covers recent developments in EC financial management and measures to counter fraud against the EC budget. It includes information on amendments to the arrangements for the financing of the annual budget of the European Communities in the own-resources decision area. It also includes updates on the EC budget review, the new own-resources decision and recent measures taken to improve the management and control of the EC budget.

Georgia

Lord Malloch-Brown: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. David Miliband) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I refer honourable and right honourable Members to the Written (Prime) Ministerial Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister today.

Gypsies and Travellers

Baroness Andrews: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Iain Wright) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Homes and Communities Agency as established in the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 will for the first time bring together in one agency housing and regeneration funding, public land and expertise to deliver decent, affordable housing and regenerate our communities by creating places where people choose to live. It will play a key role in turning our ambition to deliver 3 million new homes by 2020 into a reality.
	As part of that role, I am today announcing that from 1 December 2008 the Homes and Communities Agency will take on responsibility for the Gypsy and Traveller site grant, which provides funding for the provision and refurbishment of Gypsy and Traveller sites. This approach will bring delivery of homes for Gypsies and Travellers into line with the arrangements for housing and accommodation delivery for the rest of the community. It reflects our determination to address the existing shortfall in accommodation for all in society, tackling the problems that can be caused by unauthorised camping and the poor life chances of Gypsies and Travellers themselves.
	The HCA will be responsible for administering the Gypsy and Traveller site grant to meet ambitious but realistic targets for the delivery of pitches across England. Through its close relationship with local authorities and other delivery partners, the HCA will be well placed to step up the pace of delivery for the benefit of both Gypsies and Travellers and the settled community. This approach responds to the findings of the independent task group on site provision and enforcement, chaired by Sir Brian Briscoe, whose report issued in December found that the policy framework for site provision was sound, but that delivery was slow.
	Ministers will continue to have oversight of the programme, ensuring that it achieves the Governments objectives of meeting Gypsies and Travellers accommodation needs and supporting community cohesion. We will also be asking the HCA to recommend any changes to the programme for 2010-11 that may be necessary to improve delivery; £97 million was allocated for the grant through the CSR07 period, and funding for 2009-10 and 2010-11 will be transferred in full to the HCA on its establishment.

NHS: Health and Social Care

Lord Darzi of Denham: The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ben Bradshaw) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	On 11 August 2008, I published a consultation document, which is the latest stage in the development of the new system we are introducing for the regulation of health and adult social care.
	Changes to Arrangements for Regulating NHS Bodies in Relation to Healthcare-associated Infections for 2009-10: A Consultation for the NHS takes forward our commitment to allow the Care Quality Commission to regulate NHS bodies with respect to healthcare associated infections from April 2009. A copy has been placed in the Library and copies are available for honourable Members from the Vote Office.
	The NHS has been working hard to tackle healthcare-associated infections. We are on course to halve the number of MRSA infections from 2003-04 levels and reduce C. difficile infections. Patients keep telling us that contracting a healthcare-associated infection is one of their biggest concerns. It is crucial that we focus on bringing infection rates down even further and protecting patients, staff and visitors from the risk of infection.
	Patients are looking for assurances that no matter who provides their care, they will receive a safe and quality service. They also look to the regulators of health and social care to support and encourage improvements in the services they use.
	The NHS next stage review final report, High Quality Care for All, emphasises the important role that regulation plays in improving quality.
	The Health and Social Care Act establishes the Care Quality Commission on 1 October this year and it will take over responsibility for regulating health and adult social care from April 2009. It will operate under a new legislative framework, with a wider range of enforcement powers. These include powers to inspect and investigate, to issue statutory warning notices and financial penalties and, in the most serious cases, to prosecute, suspend or cancel registration.
	This document sets out how we plan to carry forward the existing code of practice for the prevention and control of healthcare-associated infections into this new environment, and further details the full range of enforcement powers that will be introduced under the Health and Social Care Act 2008.
	This publication encourages all NHS organisations to engage with this process and provides an opportunity for them to comment. However, it will also be of interest to anyone working in health and adult social care and to patients and service users who are interested in how the reforms are going to improve the services they use. The consultation will close on 20 October 2008.

Hong Kong

Lord Malloch-Brown: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (David Miliband) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The latest report on the implementation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong was published today. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. A copy of the report is also available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website (www.fco.gov.uk). The report covers the period from 1 January to 30 June 2008. I commend the report to the House.

Learning and Skills Council

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My honourable friend the Minister of State for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Bill Rammell) has made the following Statement.
	I would like to inform the House that Section 2 of the Further Education and Training Act 2007, which inserts Section 18A of the Learning and Skills Act 2000, placing a duty on the Council to establish regional councils, has been enacted. The Learning and Skills Council has been successful in appointing members to each of its nine regional councils. The regional councils became operational on 10 September 2008. The chairs of the regional councils are:
	North-east: James Ramsbotham
	North-west: Roger HoyleYorkshire & Humberside: Rachel MannEast Midlands: Roger BegyWest Midlands: Ben ReidEast of England: Chris PaveleySouth-east: Norman BoylandSouth-west: John SavageLondon: Claire Ighodaro*
	*Claire is a member of the LSCs national council undertaking the role on an interim basis.
	The Government have announced plans for replacing the LSC with a new structure for 16 to 19 and post-19 funding. Those plans would require parliamentary approval of new legislation. These appointments are being made pending the introduction of that legislation. Full details of all regional council members can be found on the LSC website (www.lsc.gov.uk)

Manufacturing

Baroness Vadera: On 8 September, the Government unveiled a new strategy for the UKs manufacturing sectorNew Challenges, New Opportunitiesto help UK firms take advantage of changing global trends in manufacturing. A summary document is also available.
	In bringing forward their refreshed manufacturing strategy, developed by the Department for Business and the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, in partnership with industry, the Government are reaffirming their commitment to the sector as a key part of a mixed and balanced UK economy in the future.
	The refreshed strategy is intended to set out a dynamic framework that will shape further new policies and programmes in the future. It builds on the Governments manufacturing strategy of 2002, which was the first strategy for the sector for more than 30 years.
	The environment facing manufacturers has undergone and continues to face significant change. To understand what is powering these shifts we have conducted consultations with the Ministerial Advisory Group on Manufacturing and other stakeholders, and drawn upon academic and survey evidence. This has revealed the importance of five interrelated dynamics that have been and continue to be instrumental in reshaping global manufacturing.
	The increasing prevalence and complexity of global value chains, underpinned by developments in information and communication technology, and consequent fragmentation of processes, encouraging specialisation.The accelerated pace of technology exploitation as the pace and demand for change implementation has increased.The growing importance of investment in intangibles such as design, branding and R&D.The increased recognition that investment in People and Skills is among the most important for companies to make.The move to a low carbon economy as the response to climate change creates both new challenges and opportunities for manufacturing firms.
	These dynamics are described in detail in the economics paper, Five Dynamics of Change in Global Manufacturing, which accompanies the strategy. The strategy itself sets out Governments view of what the sector needs for success in the long-term. It includes the following.
	Global Value Chains: International fragmentation of productionManufacturing attracts more FDI to the UK than any other country in Europe and globally the UK is second only to the US. Manufacturing growth in other countries means opportunities for the UK. UK Trade & Investment (UKTI) will allocate additional resources to target a package of new support for 600 UK companies of all sizes to identify manufacturing value chain opportunities in India and China. And the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK-IPO) will advise on using and protecting IP in these markets.
	Technology exploitation: Accelerating the spread of new technologiesIn addition to the existing centre in Yorkshire and the centre currently being built in Glasgow, there will be a new manufacturing technology centre in Coventry. It will have industrial scale pre-production and demonstration facilities, which could lead to £130 million of investment in business-led applied research and its exploitation over the next 10 years. And the Technology Strategy Board will invest £24 million into research central to high value-added manufacturing.
	Intangibles: Competitive advantage from non-traditional elements of manufacturingFirms in the UK are using other areas of leading British skills and industry to make them more globally competitive. UK and global businesses are growing their investment in intangible or knowledge assets, such as software, design and brand building in order to improve their global competitiveness and to meet the changing needs of customers. The Design Council and regional development agencies will implement the findings of the current review of the Designing Demand programme to increase penetration of the programme across the regions. We have supported the creation of the UK Design Skills Alliance and will work with the alliance to help ensure the world-leading UK design sector has the skills required by manufacturers to compete in global markets.
	People: Improving the skills base and attracting talent into manufacturingThe strategy sets out a renewed focus on apprenticeships, including the extension and expansion of high-quality apprenticeships by approximately 1,500 new places, in addition to the 9,000 places announced earlier this year. We will expand apprenticeships by inviting bids from larger manufacturers to train additional apprentices, including for their supply chains. And for manufacturers, there will be a clear focus on simplifying their experience of the skills system so they can quickly and easily access the skills and training support they need. The memorandum of understanding published alongside the strategy sets out how delivery partners will work together to simplify the offer to employers.
	A new body, Manufacturing Insight, will be tasked with making the public perception of manufacturing reflect the reality of a successful, modern and broad sector and ensuring young people are aware of the exciting career opportunities available. There will also be a Manufacturing the Future schools campaign to promote manufacturing career prospects to young people.
	Low-carbon Economy: Opportunities for manufacturing Next year, a low-carbon industrial strategy will address the challenges facing manufacturers as they try to reduce their carbon footprint and the huge opportunities from investment in energy and a shift to a low-carbon economy. The Office of Nuclear Development will work with industry partners to develop the nuclear supply chain and maximise high value-added work captured by UK manufacturers from an estimated £20 billion capital expenditure in nuclear. And a new Office for Renewable Energy Deployment will be established to address barriers to renewables deployment including helping to develop the UK supply chain. Nuclear and renewables alone could create up to 260,000 jobs over the next 10 years.
	Related documents have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. These are:
	Manufacturing: New Challenges, New Opportunities (summary document)
	Manufacturing: New Challenges, New Opportunities (full strategy documentprintout of document published on the BERR and DIUS websites)
	BERR Economics Paper No. 2: Five Dynamics of Change in Global ManufacturingUnderpinning Economic Analysis
	Memorandum of Understanding: Education and Training Support in the Manufacturing Sector.

National Audit Office: Public Accounts Commission Report

Lord Davies of Oldham: My honourable friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Angela Eagle) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I welcome the work of the Public Accounts Commission (TPAC) on the new governance arrangements for the National Audit Office (NAO) as set out in its 16th report (HC 1027) published on 24 July.
	The Government will continue to work with TPAC, the NAO, the Ministry of Justice and Parliamentary Counsel to prepare provisions for the Constitutional Renewal Bill to implement the commissions recommendations.

Police: Injury Awards

Lord West of Spithead: My honourable friend the Minister of State for the Home Department (Tony McNulty) has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	On 25 August I published a consultation document, Review of Police Injury Benefits: Government Proposals, which sets out proposals for a revised police injury awards scheme in the UK. We intend that the new scheme should be in place as early as possible in 2009, following agreement of the key issues in the Police Negotiating Board by December this year.
	The review of the current police injury awards scheme has given us the opportunity to ensure that we have a system of benefits with criteria suitable for modern-day conditions and which ensures that the financial support currently given to police officers and their families for injury or death in the line of duty is properly targeted and is effectively and consistently administered by police forces. The proposals in the consultation document cover a range of issues, including the eligibility criteria for receiving an award, the structure of benefits under the scheme for both former officers and their survivors, and the role of police authorities and medical practitioners involved in considering claims for awards.
	Key proposals set out in the consultation document include:
	the introduction, as announced by the Home Secretary to the Police Federation conference in May this year, of life-long adult survivor benefits and the extension of survivor benefits to nominated unmarried and unregistered partners in cases where an officer dies in the line of duty. At present survivor benefits for death in the line of duty are restricted to bereaved spouses and civil partners and are stopped on remarriage or cohabitation;simplifying injury and survivor awards so they are easier to understand and apply. For instance, if an officer dies or is totally disabled within one year of an injury in the line of duty, the lump sum payment made will as a matter of course be five times the officers pensionable salary. Currently financial support is set at four times the officers actual total salary if that works out to be the lesser amount;making injury and death payments fairer. The pensionable salary on which lump sum awards are based will be changed so that it is based on average pensionable pay. This will take account of a persons working hours averaged over his or her police career rather than simply the pensionable pay at the time the officer ceased to serve. This will protect those who may have just reduced their hours before being injured;revising the eligibility criteria and clarifying the definition for injuries received in the line of duty. This clarification will mean that officers will be specifically covered for injury benefits as a result of a terrorist attack and will focus benefits on those injuries received in the line of duty. Proposals will also include withdrawing cover for injury or death sustained on a journey to or from work where the cause was not related to police dutyto bring injury benefits for the police service in line with injury benefits for other public servants;a clearer link between injury awards and police duty, by introducing a five-year time limit for new post-retirement claims, except in the case of specified progressive illnesses and specified conditions with a long incubation period;a clearer link between injury awards and compensation for loss of earnings, by introducing an absolute cut-off for new claims at age 65 or state pension age at the time if over 65;replacing injury pension reviews at age 65 (or the state pension age at the time if over 65) by introducing a new minimum retirement income guarantee. Under the current system officers injured early in their career can suffer a large reduction in financial support in their retirement if the review takes them to the lowest pay banding. The new retirement income guarantee will protect against this;and no longer paying injury pensions in cases where a former officer has suffered only a very slight loss of earning capacity as a result of the injury. In cases where the loss of earning capacity is 10 per cent or less the former officer will receive a lump sum payment in recognition of the injury. This will allow benefits to be targeted where they are needed most.
	Any changes made as a result of the review will apply to officers serving at the time of implementation, regardless of whether they have already sustained an injury. They will not apply retrospectively, howeverthat is, to officers who have already retired when the changes come into force; they will still be dealt with under the system as it currently stands, even if they have not yet applied for an award.
	Our aim is to create a transparent, fair and effective system that provides police officers reassurance to deal with the difficulties that 21st century policing brings. I hope that a constructive and active debate ensues on the proposals we have announced.
	The consultation exercise is being conducted on a UK-wide basis in co-operation with the Scottish Executive and the Northern Ireland Office. Copies of the consultation document have been placed in the Library. Further copies can be downloaded from www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/haveyoursay/current-consultations/. Comments have been requested by 18 November 2008.

Police: Pay

Lord West of Spithead: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jacqui Smith) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	On 6 December 2007, I published Sir Clive Booths report Determining Pay in the Police Service. Sir Clive Booth recommended that a pay review body for police officers should be created. I indicated that the Government accepted his recommendations and we would consult on proposals for implementing the necessary changes to the police officer pay machinery.
	On 8 January 2008, I wrote to the Police Negotiating Board (PNB) asking it to consider a multi-year deal for police officers based on the index used by the Police Arbitration Tribunal (PAT) in 2007. I made it clear that if the PNB agreed such a deal, it could be implemented in full, and the issue of implementing a pay review body for police officers would become less pressing. We therefore deferred consultation on the implementation of a pay review body while negotiations on a multi-year deal were taking place. The Governments approach on this was also set out in From the Neighbourhood to the National: Policing our Communities Together (Cm 7448) published on 17 July 2008.
	The official side of the PNB made an offer of a three-year pay deal that was one of the most generous in the public sector. Regrettably, there was a failure to agree with the staff side on this basis. In the event that the PNB had agreed a multi-year deal there would have been no role for a pay review body for some time but, disappointingly, for the third consecutive year a deal was not agreed.
	The Government are therefore today beginning consultation on proposals for implementing a pay review body for police officers. Sir Clive Booth already consulted widely with policing stakeholders when undertaking his review. So this second consultation will be an opportunity for stakeholders to comment on the detail of the proposed changes to the police officer pay machinery, including the scope and purpose of the new body, its remit, and membership and coverage.
	The consultation will close on Wednesday 5 November 2008.
	I have today placed a copy of the consultation document in the Library of the House.

Terrorism: Control Orders

Lord West of Spithead: My right honourable friend the Minster for Security, Counter-terrorism, Crime and Policing (Mr. Tony McNulty) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	Section 14(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (the 2005 Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of the control order powers during that period.
	The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.
	Control orders continue to be an essential tool to protect the public from terrorism, particularly where it is not possible to prosecute individuals for terrorism-related activity and, in the case of foreign nationals, where they cannot be removed from the UK.
	As stated in previous quarterly statements on control orders, control order obligations are tailored to the individual concerned and are based on the terrorism-related risk that that individual poses. Each control order is kept under regular review to ensure that obligations remain necessary and proportionate. The Home Office continues to hold control order review groups (CORGs) every quarter, with representation from law-enforcement and intelligence agencies, to keep the obligations in every control order under regular and formal review and to facilitate a review of appropriate exit strategies. During this reporting period, three CORGs were held in relation to the orders currently in force. In addition, further meetings were held on an ad-hoc basis as specific issues arose.
	During the period 11 June 2008 to 10 September 2008, one new non-derogating control order was made. Six non-derogating control orders were renewed in accordance with Section 2(6) of the 2005 Act. In total, 16 control orders are currently in force, four of which are in respect of British citizens. Three individuals subject to a control order live in the Metropolitan Police Service area; the remaining individuals live in other police force areas. All of these control orders are non-derogating.
	During this reporting period, 120 modifications of control order obligations were made and 61 requests to modify a control order obligation were refused. A right of appeal exists in Sections 10(1) and 10(3) of the 2005 Act respectively against decisions by the Secretary of State to renew a non-derogating control order or modify an obligation imposed by a non-derogating control order without consent, and against decisions by the Secretary of State to refuse a request by a controlled person to modify any such obligation. Ten appeals have been lodged with the High Court by controlled persons relating to modifications to orders or the renewal of orders in this reporting period. One of these appeals was subsequently withdrawn.
	Seven judgments have been handed down by the High Court in control-order cases during this reporting period. Three of these judgments have been handed down in the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v Abu Rideh. An interim judgment in a modification appeal was handed down on 23 June 2008 in which the court ordered that a modification be made to Abu Ridehs reporting requirements. Final judgment was reserved until the conclusion of the substantive review of the control order under Section 3(10) of the 2005 Act. Following the hearing under Section 3(10) in July, a judgment was handed down on 8 August 2008 in relation to the issue of compliance with Article 6 of ECHR (a closed version of the judgment was handed down on 31 July 2008). The court ordered that further disclosure of the closed case against Abu Rideh should be made available to him or withdrawn from the case. No appeals against this judgment have been submitted by either side as yet. A further interim judgment in relation to modification appeals submitted by Abu Rideh was handed down on 15 August 2008. The court ordered some further modifications to Abu Ridehs reporting and visitor obligations but upheld the Secretary of States decision to refuse to allow Abu Rideh to have access to the internet.
	Two of the judgments handed down in this reporting period relate to the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v AP. A closed judgment in relation to Article 6 compliance was handed down on 14 July 2008. A judgment was handed down in the substantive 3(10) review of APs control order on 15 August 2008. The court found that there was reasonable suspicion that APis, or has been, involved in terrorism related activity and that a control order is necessary to protect the public from a risk of terrorism. The court also found that no further disclosure was necessary in order to ensure compliance with Article 6. The judgment dealt with two modification appeals lodged by the controlled person. On the first appeal, the court found that a modification made to APs control order by the Secretary of State had created a package of obligations which was in breach of Article 5. APwas subsequently served with a modified control order. The second appeal in relation to restrictions on meetings and mosque attendance was dismissed. Both AP and the Secretary of State have sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal; decisions with regard to permission are pending.
	Two judgments have been handed down in other cases in relation to modification appeals lodged by controlled persons. A judgment was handed down in the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v AEon 21 July 2008 in which the court upheld the Secretary of States decision to refuse AE permission to study AS-level human biology and chemistry. On 31 July 2008, a judgment was handed down in the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v AUand AVin which the court dismissed appeals by the controlled persons against the Secretary of States refusal to make various modifications to the control order obligations.
	Full judgments are available at http://www.bailii.org/

Armed Forces: Compensation Scheme

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Derek Twigg) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	It has been brought to my attention that replies I gave on 14 May 2008, (Official Report, Commons, col. 1578W) to the honourable Member for North Devon (Mr Harvey) and on 6 June 2008, (Official Report, Commons, col. 1182W) to the honourable Member for Woodspring (Dr Fox) over-reported the percentage and number of rejected claims made under the Armed Forces compensation scheme.
	The original data and subsequent revisions are shown in the tables below.
	
		
			 Table 1: Previously released and revised AFCS rejection percentages (excluding medical discharges) 
			  2005-06 2006-07 Apr 07-Dec 07 
			 Released percentages of rejections 40% 36% 45% 
			 Revised percentages of rejections 40% 36% 37% 
		
	
	
		
			 Table 2: Previously released and revised AFCS rejection figures 
			  2005-06 2006-07 Apr 07-Dec 07 
			 Released percentages of rejections 165 745 740 
			 Revised percentages of rejections 165 740 590

Armed Forces: BAES LSM

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Derek Twigg) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I am pleased to announce that on 20 August we signed a 15-year partnering agreement with BAE Systems Land Systems Munitions (BAES LSM) for the future supply of general munitions to the Armed Forces. This is the first opportunity since contract signature to inform the House.
	The new contractual arrangements have been developed under the umbrella of Project MASS (Munitions AcquisitionThe Supply Solution), which is a key strand for delivering the defence industrial strategy (DIS) within the general munitions field. The contractual partnering agreement is underpinned by a broader non-contractual strategic partnering arrangement between BAES LSM and the MoD for the longer-term delivery of joint objectives in the munitions sector.
	At present, 80 per cent, by value, of the general munitions used by the Armed Forces for front-line operations and training are procured from BAES LSM under a contract due to end in 2010. The new, innovative partnering agreement will continue to cover about 80 per cent of the general munitions requirement, including small arms and medium calibre ammunition, mortar shells and artillery shells and will ensure continuing security of supply for a minimum of 15 years. The new agreement, which is worth at least £2 billion and, depending on the level of demand, potentially in excess of £3 billion, also incentivises BAES LSM to deliver a modern, world-class industrial base.
	This is excellent news for defence. Not only will the new arrangements deliver a long-term, secure supply of battle-winning munitions for our Armed Forces, it will ensure that the UK retains an important sovereign capability, directly sustaining some 1,700 UK jobs. It is also excellent news for BAES LSM and for its highly skilled work force in the north of England and south Wales, who are to be commended for their continued commitment and contribution to our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, under the current arrangements. During this period of high demand, the company has stepped up production to meet the challenge, providing up to one million rounds of small arms ammunition a day from their manufacturing facility at Radway Green, near Crewe.
	Our new partnering agreement with BAES LSM is an important milestone in the implementation of the defence industrial strategy, which is providing a framework for real change in the defence industry and its relationships with the MoD.

Armed Forces: Qinetiq

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Derek Twigg) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	This Statement updates the House on the successful sale by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) of its entire holding of ordinary shares in QinetiQ Group plc (QinetiQ). QinetiQ was created in 2001 from the majority of the MoDs in-house science and technology laboratories. Given the market-sensitive nature of the transaction, it was not possible to inform the House in advance of the decision to sell.
	The MoD announced on 9 September 2008 that it would sell its remaining 18.9 per cent stake, comprising approximately 125 million ordinary shares, in the company. The sale process was completed on the same day through an accelerated book-build process, achieving a price of 206p per share and raising around £254 million (net of estimated costs) for the taxpayer. The price achieved by the MoD represented a discount of 7.8 per cent to the closing price of QinetiQ shares on the day before the transaction. A discount is normal for a transaction of this scale. Between flotation and this sale, the average price of QinetiQ shares in the market was 194p.
	The Government retain a special share in the company. This provides the Government with the right to block certain activities or ownership that could be contrary to UK defence and security interests or which could threaten QinetiQs ability to provide its MoD customers with impartial advice.
	The sale brings the total raised for the taxpayer from the privatisation of QinetiQ to approximately £830m (net of costs).

Department for Transport: Official Receptions

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jim Fitzpatrick) has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	I have today published a list of receptions hosted by Department for Transport Ministers in the 2007-08 financial year.
	The total cost of receptions held for the financial year 2007-08 was £408.10.
	
		
			 Official receptions hosted by Ministers at the Department for Transport 
			 Date Event Number Host 
			 27 February 2008 Reception for members of the parking working group 20 Rosie Winterton

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My honourable friend the Minister of State (Michael Wills) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	Tomorrow I will deposit copies of The Freedom of Information Act 2000Statistics on implementation in Central Government: Q2April-June 2008 in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies will also be available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.
	This is the quarterly monitoring statistics report analysing the performance of central government in the fourth full year of freedom of information.

HMS Tireless

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Bob Ainsworth) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	Following my Statement on 12 June 2008 about the incident that took place on board HMS Tireless in March 2007, I would like to inform the House today that the investigation undertaken on behalf of the Chief of Defence Materiel to consider issues relating to the procurement, supply and management of oxygen generators has concluded.
	This investigation has shown that, when the Ministry of Defence introduced the self-contained oxygen generator (SCOG) into service on submarines, it assessed that the new unit delivered a substantial improvement to the safe generation of emergency oxygen over the previously used mark V candle. The cap and seal present in the new design was believed to be proof against contamination. The investigation has, however, made it clear that this belief and therefore the resultant understanding of any risk of explosion were flawed and that we were complacent about the improvement in safety the new SCOGs delivered.
	The investigation has also identified a number of shortcomings in the way we handled and managed SCOGs. In particular, it has demonstrated that logistics management processes were in some places ambiguous and as a result were neither consistently applied nor comprehensively followed. The investigation found that these shortcomings existed across the logistics management system.
	The investigation also looked at the issue of individual culpability. It concluded that, although individuals had made mistakes, the errors made did not amount to negligence and as a result disciplinary action is not justified. Although no individual was found to be personally culpable, it is clear that we were complacent, and, as I said in my Statement on 12 June, the Ministry of Defence must bear responsibility for this tragic incident. As part of that responsibility it is our duty to ensure that the necessary changes are made to prevent a reoccurrence.
	The DE&S investigation has made fourteen recommendations for improvements across the logistics management process, including for the handling, storage and tracking of SCOGs. These recommendations have been accepted in full and are being implemented, along with those made by the board of inquiry, which consulted a range of organisations, including NASA, while it looked into this incident.
	The Ministry of Defence has already put in place a number of improved processes, guidance and equipment-related measures since the explosion on HMS Tireless. An interim replacement for the generation of emergency oxygen which is better protected than the SCOG has been introduced. This is being supplied to the submarine fleet as quickly as practicable. We have already fitted replacement oxygen generators to two of the fleet and expect to have rolled them out to the rest by the end of the year. These, along with any pre-existing SCOGs which remain in use over the next few months, will only be used in an emergency situation and are being handled appropriately. Work is also under way to develop and introduce a replacement oxygen-generating capability for routine and emergency use in the future.
	The outcome of this further investigation, its recommendations and the improvements that are already being put in place do not change the fact that as a result of this tragic incident two submariners died and another was seriously injured. I would again like to offer my sincere sympathies to their families, friends and colleagues and assure them that the action we have taken significantly reduces the risk of such a tragedy happening again. My department is continuing to provide the coroner with every assistance possible and is keeping the Heath and Safety Executive fully informed.
	I am today placing a copy of the investigation report in the Library of the House.

Iraq

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence (Des Browne) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The next roulement of UK forces in Iraq, known as Operation TELIC 13, will take place from November. The TELIC 13 force package will see the lead formation, currently 7 Armoured Brigade, replaced by 20 Armoured Brigade.
	20 Armoured Brigade will take over the command of UK forces from early December and will provide the majority of the units serving in Iraq. The forces deploying include personnel from the following units:
	
		
			 20th Armoured Brigade Headquarters and Signal Squadron (200) 
			 The Queens Royal Hussars (The Queens Own and Royal Irish) 
			 35 Engineer Regiment 
			 1st Battalion The Princess of Waless Royal Regiment (Queens and Royal Hampshires) 
			 1st Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment (Prince of Waless Own) 
			 5th Battalion The Rifles 
			 1 Logistic Support Regiment The Royal Logistic Corps 
			 110 Provost Company Royal Military Police 
			 606 Tactical Air Control Party 
			 618 Tactical Air Control Party 
			 Elements of 1st Royal Tank Regiment 
			 Elements of 5th Regiment Royal Artillery 
			 Elements of 16th Regiment Royal Artillery 
			 Elements of 26th Regiment Royal Artillery 
			 Elements of 32nd Regiment Royal Artillery 
			 Elements of 47th Regiment Royal Artillery 
			 Elements of 33 Engineer Regiment (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) 
			 Elements of 42 Engineer Regiment (Geographical) 
			 Elements of 170 (Infrastructure Support) Engineer Group 
			 Elements of 2nd Signal Regiment 
			 Elements of 10th Signal Regiment 
			 Elements of 14th Signal Regiment (Electronic Warfare) 
			 Elements of 21st Signal Regiment (Air Support) 
			 Elements of 1 Regiment Army Air Corps 
			 Elements of 9 Regiment Army Air Corps 
			 Elements of 6 Supply Regiment The Royal Logistic Corps 
			 Elements of 9 Supply Regiment The Royal Logistic Corps 
			 Elements of 11 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Regiment The Royal Logistic Corps 
			 Elements of 17 Port and Maritime Regiment The Royal Logistic Corps 
			 Elements of 24 Postal Courier and Movement Regiment The Royal Logistic Corps 
			 Elements of 27 Transport Regiment The Royal Logistic Corps 
			 Elements of 29 Postal Courier and Movement Regiment The Royal Logistic Corps 
			 Elements of 1 Close Support Medical Regiment 
			 Elements of 22 Field Hospital 
			 Elements of 3 Close Support Battalion Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers 
			 Elements of 101 Force Support Battalion Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers 
			 Elements of 103 Military Working Dogs Support Unit 
			 Elements of 1 Military Intelligence Brigade 
			 Elements of 156 (North West) Transport Regiment The Royal Logistic Corps (Volunteer) 
			 Elements of 148 Expeditionary Forces Squadron The Royal Logistic Corps (Volunteer) 
			 Elements of 28 Squadron Royal Air Force 
			 Elements of 78 Squadron Royal Air Force 
			 Elements of Tactical Supply Wing 
			 Elements of Joint Helicopter Support Unit 
		
	
	Members of the Reserve Forces will continue to deploy to Iraq as part of this force package, and we expect to issue around 175 call-out notices in order to fill some 150 posts during TELIC 13. Prior to their deployment and on completion of their mobilisation procedures, the reservists will undertake a period of training and integration with their respective units. For the majority, their deployment to theatre will commence in November, and most will serve on operations for six to seven months, although some may have shorter tours. The reservists will predominantly reinforce regular units and will perform a wide range of activities including force protection duties, intelligence and logistic tasks. As part of this commitment, we expect up to 10 members of the sponsored reserves to be in the operational theatre at any one time.

Organ Donors

Lord Darzi of Denham: My honourable friend the Minister of State, Department of Health (Ben Bradshaw) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The government response to the House of Lords European Union Committee report on increasing the supply of donor organs within the European Union (Cm 7466) has today been laid before Parliament. The response is in the Library, and copies are available to honourable Members from the Vote Office.

Planning

Baroness Andrews: My honourable friend the Minister for Local Government (John Healey) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I can confirm to the House that the Government will shortly commence the early recruitment and appointment of a chair and chief executive of the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC), before Royal Assent of the Planning Bill.
	The IPC will act as the decision-maker for the majority of major infrastructure consents, acting within a national policy framework set by government. Early appointments will give infrastructure developers the confidence to work on applications for development consent under the new regime, with the knowledge that the IPC will be operational and able to provide advice by the time the first national policy statements are designated, anticipated to be towards the end of 2009.
	Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £50,000 for this new service will be sought in a supplementary estimate for CLG. Pending that approval, expenditure estimated at £50,000 will be met by a repayable cash advance from the contingencies fund, under the established terms of that fund.

Regional Spatial Strategies

Baroness Andrews: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Parmjit Dhanda) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is publishing on 30 September the final revision of the regional spatial strategy (RSS) for the north-west of England. This is a slight amendment to the late August or early September date which my 17 July Statement suggested (Official Report, Commons, col. 42WS). The reports of a consolidated sustainability appraisal, a habitats regulations assessment and sustainability statement will also be published alongside the RSS on 30 September.
	The regional spatial strategy forms part of the statutory development plan for every local authority in the north-west and sets the framework for the production of local development frameworks and local transport plans. It provides the spatial plan for the development of the region and the policy framework for employment, housing, transport and the environment.
	The current strategy, initially published as regional planning guidance, became the regional spatial strategy in September 2004 with the enactment of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act. A draft revision of the regional spatial strategy was submitted to government in January 2006 by the North West Regional Assembly. It was subsequently tested in an examination in public between November 2006 and February 2007, and the report of the independent panel which conducted this examination was published in May 2007. The Secretary of State considered the recommendations of this independent panel and took into account the representations made on the draft revision and also changes in government policy since the draft revision was submitted, before publishing proposed changes for further public consultation between March and May 2008.
	The consultation period ended on 23 May. In total 1,836 representations were received from 149 people and organisations. All of these representations have been considered, along with updates to the habitat regulations assessment and sustainability appraisal/ strategic environmental assessment. As a result, a number of amendments and clarifications have been made to various parts of the plan.
	Copies of the relevant documents will be available from 30 September in the Libraries of both Houses.

Suicide Act

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Maria Eagle) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	There has been growing concern in recent years about whether current law is adequate to deal with misuse of the internet to promote suicide and suicide methods. The Government share the concerns that have been expressed about such misuse, in particular about suicide websites and the influence they may have over vulnerable people, especially young people.
	In response to a Question from my honourable friend the Member for Bridgend (Madeleine Moon) on 11 March 2008, my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Jack Straw) said that we were looking at this issue and would make an announcement as soon as possible (Official Report, Commons, 11/3/08; col. 141). The Government subsequently accepted in full the recommendations of the Byron review, including the recommendation that consideration should be given to whether the law in this area could usefully be clarified. This Statement sets out our conclusions.
	The law of suicide comprises two offences. The first is the offence under Section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961 of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring a suicide or a suicide attempt, and the second is an offence under Section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 of attempting to aid, abet, counsel or procure a suicide or a suicide attempt. Actions to assist or attempt to assist suicide can be carried out on- or off-line.
	The complexity of the law in this area stems from the unusual nature of the offence in Section 2 of the Suicide Act, which provides accessory liability in respect of something which is not of itself criminal. We believe that the law as it stands is capable of catching the sort of material that is causing concern and, more generally, the encouragement of suicide through the medium of the internet. But in practice the application of the law, particularly in terms of what constitutes an attempt to commit the Section 2 offence, is complicated. It is difficult both to understand and to explain.
	Accordingly, we have concluded that the scope of the current law should not be extended but the existing statutory language of Section 2 of the Suicide Act should be simplified and modernised in a way which will make it clearer for everyone to understand. Simplifying and modernising the language of the law should provide reassurance that the law is capable of reflecting the new ways of communicating and accessing information. This approach also builds on a recommendation from the Law Commission that there is a strong case for updating the language of Section 2.
	We therefore intend to legislate to update the Suicide Act as soon as parliamentary time allows. With the support of my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office (Paul Goggins) and the Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety in the Northern Ireland Executive (Michael McGimpsey), the legislation will also include Northern Ireland. The updated legislation will comply, as does the existing law, with the requirements of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002.

Human Rights

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Lord Laird tabled 34 Questions for Written Answer on human rights covering a number of government departments. Given the length of the answers to these Questions I am providing the information requested in this Statement. Each Question is referred to by means of the House of Lords number. A list of the Questions will be included as an annexe to the text of this Statement deposited in the Library.
	The Government keep many areas of their policy under close review. While there may not at this time be specific proposals in relation to many of the specific areas cited in the Questions, continuous assessment of the effectiveness of policy in these areas is often being undertaken. It should not necessarily therefore be inferred from the current absence of such proposals that the Government may not at some future time nevertheless bring forward proposals.
	The Forum recently published its recommendations on the current process towards a Northern Ireland Bill of Rights. It is inevitable that many of these issues will be considered in that context. It should also be noted that my ministerial colleagues here in the Ministry of Justice are leading work on the framework of rights and responsibilities in the United Kingdom, in the context of which many of these areas would also be considered, including particularly the various rights and freedoms which are referred to at the start of many of the questions. Given that both of these projects will yet be the subject of consultation, it would not be appropriate to state that any area would definitely be included in or excluded from either of those documents in its final form.
	In providing the response to the Questions for Written Answer I have started with questions HL3666 to HL3669.
	In Question HL3666, Lord Laird asked whether the Government plan to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 in part or all of the United Kingdom. The Government have no plans to do so. It was this Government that brought home the rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) by means of the Human Rights Act. In July 2006 Lord Falconer of Thoroton, then Lord Chancellor, undertook a review of the implementation of the Human Rights Act, in which the Government expressly indicated that they remain committed both to the ECHR, and to the way effect is given to it in the United Kingdom by the Human Rights Act 1998. It is of course possible that the precise legislative form of the Human Rights Act may need to be considered in the context of the outcome of the work on rights and responsibilities, but the rights and the core protections given to them will remain.
	In Question HL3667, Lord Laird asked whether the Government plan to dispense with the United Kingdoms powers to derogate from and to make reservations under the ECHR. It would be impossible for the Government to do so. The United Kingdom already has no power to make reservations in relation to its existing obligations under the Convention. Reservations may only be entered by a state at the time at which it signs or ratifies (or equivalent processes for other states through which treaty obligations are accepted) the Convention. Therefore, the United Kingdom could only enter a reservation at such time as it signs or ratifies an additional Protocol to the Convention; it is not possible for the United Kingdom to dispense with this power. It is similarly not possible for the United Kingdom to dispense with its power under Article 15 of the Convention to derogate from those obligations under the Convention in respect of which derogation is permitted. The Government nevertheless have no plans at this time to derogate from any of its obligations under the Convention.
	In Question HL3668, Lord Laird asked whether the Government plan to empower the courts of the United Kingdom to apply unincorporated international human rights law. Our dualist legal system means that international treaties are not enforceable in our domestic courts unless they have been expressly incorporated into our domestic law, as happened in respect of ECHR through the Human Rights Act 1998. The Government believe that this system remains appropriate to the United Kingdoms constitutional traditions, and have no plans to change it. There are nevertheless limited circumstances in which our domestic courts can have regard to our international treaty obligations, including international human rights treaties, most notably where a court interprets an ambiguous statutory provision by reference to the assumption that Parliament, in the absence of an express indication to the contrary, does not intend to legislate so as to place the United Kingdom in breach of its international obligations.
	Question HL3669, asked whether the Government plans to establish human rights courts or tribunals. Section 7(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act allows a person who claims that a public authority (within the meaning of Section 6(3)(b) of the Act) has acted (or proposes to act) in a way which is made unlawful by Section 6(1) may rely on the Convention rights in legal proceedings before any court or tribunal. This is in addition to the specific procedure by which proceedings may be brought under Section 7(1)(a) of the Act specifically for breach of the Convention rights, which would be taken to the appropriate court or tribunal for the proceedings. Furthermore, by virtue of Section 6(3)(a) of the Act, all courts and tribunals are themselves public authorities for the purposes of the Act and thus bound not to act incompatibly with the Convention rights; they are therefore obliged to consider, where relevant, the Convention rights of parties to a case in all proceedings, whether or not a party to the case is a public authority. The Government believe that this flexible approach to the consideration of the Convention rights is a particular strength of the Human Rights Act, and therefore have no plans to establish specific courts or tribunals to consider human rights proceedings.
	In relation to the other Questions tabled by Lord Laird, where the answer does not specifically address a part of a question, it indicates that the Government have no specific plans at this time to take the action about which Lord Laird inquired, but do not necessarily rule out action in relation to that area in the future either in legislation specific to that area, or through the ongoing work on rights and responsibilities. The Government do, however, believe that it is not appropriate to create justiciable rights  particularly those that would be considered economic, social or cultural rights  that could lead to judicial determination of the allocation of resources; this is properly a role for the democratically elected Government.
	In relation to Lord Lairds Questions which may relate to matters that are devolved in Scotland or Northern Ireland, or transferred in Wales, I have responded only in so far as the issue is the responsibility of the Government at Westminster.
	In Question HL3461, Lord Laird asked whether the Government will abolish the detention of persons under the age of 18. The Government believe that courts should have the power to sentence or remand young people under 18 to custody where that is the only realistic option, and consequently have no plans to abolish this power. The Government similarly have no plans to abolish immigration detention. It is used as a measure of last resort, and alternatives to detention are used wherever possible. Detention is, however, an important measure where a person who, for example, has no legal basis of stay in the United Kingdom is refusing to leave the country voluntarily; without detention, we could not enforce that removal.
	Lord Laird further asked about the communication of reasons for detention. Where a person is subject to immigration detention, they are given written reasons at the point of detention in English. If the detainee does not understand English, the reasons are explained orally in a language that the detainee does understand. In respect of arrest for a criminal offence, it is already an obligation under the ECHR and the Human Rights Act that everyone who is arrested shall be informed, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for this arrest, and of any charge against him. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act Code of Practice C (detention, treatment and questioning of persons by police officers) reflects this obligation: it states in section 13 that chief officers are responsible for making sure appropriate arrangements are in place for provision of suitably qualified interpreters for people who: are deaf; [or] do not understand English. Section 13 further provides that a person must not be interviewed in the absence of a person capable of interpreting if: they have difficulty understanding English; the interviewer cannot speak the persons own language; [or] the person wants an interpreter present.
	In respect of the ability of medical practitioners, lawyers and family members to visit detained persons, the prison rules require provision to be made for prisoners to receive visits from their family and legal advisers. Prisons must organise their regime to ensure that all prisoners have an opportunity to take these visits, although they must be arranged to meet security requirements and are therefore booked in advance. Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) commission primary healthcare services within all prisons. These are the main source of healthcare for prisoners and are accessible to all. In emergency cases, there are no barriers to health professionals attending sick prisoners. For hospital treatment, arrangements for escorting and accompanying prisoners are well established.
	Immigration removal centres similarly have onsite medial provision, and detainees have access to a doctor. Arrangements are made allowing visits by lawyers and family members; while this is not ordinarily permitted at any time, removal centres run a 24-hour operation, and visits could be accommodated out of visiting times if there was an urgent need to do so.
	In relation to the last part of this Question, there is already a presumption against remand inasmuch as there is a presumption to bail. The Bail Act 1976 creates a presumption in favour of bail, but a court may refuse bail if it is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, if released on bail, the defendant would abscond, commit an offence, or interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice. The court must decide whether the defendant presents such a bail risk as to justify a remand in custody, or whether it would be appropriate to grant bail, but subject to certain conditions, breach of which would make the defendant liable to immediate arrest.
	The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 amends the Bail Act to restrict the grounds on which it is possible to refuse bail to defendants charged with a summary-only offence that is punishable by imprisonment. The aim is that custody should be targeted as precisely as possible upon cases where there is otherwise a risk of harm to the public. The court has to make a risk assessment, balancing the risk which releasing the defendant on bail may pose to the public or to the administration of justice, against the consideration that it is a serious step to remand in custody. This involves not only assessing defendants past behaviour but also predicting how they might behave.
	In Question HL3462, Lord Laird asked about the laws on equality and discrimination. The Government recently announced plans in relation to this area. The European Union is also currently considering new proposals to extend its discrimination legislation. It nevertheless remains that our domestic law already offers more comprehensive protection against discrimination than that implemented at a European Union level. Lord Laird also asked whether the Government will adopt positive discrimination. Positive discrimination generally refers to discrimination in favour of a person from a particular under-represented or otherwise disadvantaged group solely because they come from that particular group. It is, in the main, unlawful under both domestic and European legislation. The main exception is in disability legislation, which permits positive discrimination in certain circumstances where disabled people may be given preference over non-disabled people. While the Government do not in general support positive discrimination, they do support appropriate positive action, in particular through duties on the public sector to work towards the better realisation of equality on certain grounds.
	Lord Laird also asked whether the Government will ensure that disabled people enjoy human rights equally with others. It is, of course, a key part of the framework of the ECHR and the Human Rights Act that not only should the Convention rights be protected, but that under Article 14 there should be no discrimination in their protection. Furthermore, while it will not form part of our domestic law, the United Kingdom has been a strong supporter of the new United Nations Convention on Disability Rights, which the Government intend to ratify before the end of this year.
	Question HL3463, asked whether the Government intend to create a horizontal right to life, protecting people from other people as well as from the state. This is the function of the criminal law, which makes specific provision in this respect. The Government are currently undertaking a review of the law of homicide, following recommendations made by the Law Commission. This stage of the review was announced in December 2007 and will cover the partial defences of provocation and diminished responsibility, together with the law on infanticide and complicity. Any changes made to the law will not affect the applicability of the law to individuals and to the state. The Government have also recently introduced the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, which came into force on 6 April 2008. The Act applies to corporate bodies, including organisations in the public, private and third sectors, which cause a death by a gross breach of a duty of care.
	The Government have no plans to create any new retrospectivity provisions in the Human Rights Act. In general, the Act applies only to events occurring after it came into force; however, it should be noted that Section 22(4) permits the use of Section 7(1)(b) of the Act, as indicated above, in proceedings brought by or at the instigation of a public authority whenever the act in question took place. It was however decided by the House of Lords in R (Hurst) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis1 that Section 22(4) does not relate to a decision not to reopen an inquest into a death which took place before the Act came into force. The Government believe that this is the correct position under the Act.
	Lord Laird asked whether the Government will extend the law on inquests to allow witnesses to be compelled to give evidence. A coroner already has power under the Coroners Rules 1984 to compel a witness who is within his or her district to attend an inquest. A coroner has no direct power to compel a witness who is outside his or her district to attend an inquest or to require a witness to produce documents, but can apply to the High Court or a county court for a witness summons in such cases. The Coroners and Death Certification Bill will give coroners power to compel witnesses to attend witnesses whether or not the witness is within the coroners jurisdiction. The Bill will also give coroners direct power to compel a witness to produce documents.
	Lord Laird also asked whether the Government will alter the law on the minimum use of force to create a different test for persons under the age of 18. Last year, the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Children, Schools and Families set up a joint review of restraint issues in juvenile settings including secure training centres, young offender institutions and secure childrens homes. We will consider the issue of the use of force in light of the recommendations that have been made.
	In Question HL3464, Lord Laird asked about hate crime legislation. The criminal law protects everybody from violence, threats of violence, harassment or criminal damage to property. There are also aggravated offences of racial and religiously motivated assault, harassment and criminal damage which attract higher maximum penalties than if the offence is not aggravated. In addition, there are statutory aggravating factors which need to be considered in sentencing for any offence if the offence is motivated by hatred based on race, religion, sexual orientation or disability. The Government have no plans to amend the law in this respect.
	In relation to the second part of this Question, the Government also have no plans to amend the law in respect of a womans right to control her reproduction. In respect of contraception, the National Health Service Act 2006 covers the provision of advice and treatment in relation to contraception, as well as the supply of substances and appliances, and places an obligation on the Secretary of State (in this case, the Secretary of State for Health) to make arrangements to such extent as he considers necessary to meet all reasonable requirements.
	The present law governing abortion in England, Scotland and Wales is the Abortion Act 1967 and the Abortion Regulations 1991, as amended. Further amendments to this legislation have been proposed during the passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, in accordance with the accepted parliamentary practice that proposals for changes in the law on abortion come from Back-Bench Members and are decided on the basis of free votes. However, the Government believe that the Abortion Act 1967, as amended, works as Parliament intended and does not require amendment at the current time.
	In his Question HL3465, Lord Laird asked whether the Government will reform the law permitting the return of a person to a country where he may be legally executed. There is no such law. Indeed, under the ECHR and the Human Rights Act, the Government may not return someone to a country where there are concerns that they may be executed without prior credible assurances that such an execution would not take place. This is in accordance with the Governments general opposition to the death penalty.
	Lord Laird also asked whether the Government will prohibit evidence obtained through ill treatment or torture from being admissible in criminal proceedings. As a matter of fundamental principle, the Government condemn the use of torture. Evidence found to have been obtained as a result of torture is not admissible in criminal or civil proceedings in the United Kingdom, except in the very limited circumstances set out in Article 15 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture in relation to prosecutions of those accused of torture. The proper approach to the consideration of whether evidence has been obtained by torture is found in the speeches of Lords Hope, Rodger, Carswell and Simon in A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2)2.
	In relation to Question HL3466, the Government have no plans to alter the absolute prohibition on slavery and forced labour contained in the Human Rights Act. The Government do not however believe that work in prison should be viewed in this context. The benefits of providing work in prisons have long been recognised. Having prisoners out of cells and taking part in employment helps maintain order and control, and introduces many to the work ethic and provides them with valuable skills which will increase their resettlement opportunities and reduce reoffending. Providing essential services to prisons is also part of the prisoner giving something back to society.
	Along with colleagues from the Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills, my ministerial colleague David Hanson hosted a forum on 13 May 2008 with the private and third sectors to discuss how the Government can develop new ways of working with employers to raise offenders skills and employability, focusing on work in prisons. An action plan is now being developed to try to match the employers interest with capacity in the prison system.
	In Question HL3488, Lord Laird asked whether the Government will add to the right to respect for private and family life a right to freedom from domestic violence and the protection of the best interests of the child. The right of the individual not to be subject to inhuman or degrading treatment is already covered by Article 3 of the Convention rights; there will be times when this will place a positive obligation upon a public authority to intervene where violence is known or believed to be occurring in a domestic setting, so as to enforce the existing provisions of the criminal law. The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 strengthened the law on domestic violence and made a number of amendments to the Family Law Act 1996 to provide better protection for victims and their children, while also holding offenders to account. The 2004 Act also included significant new police powers to deal with domestic violence, including making it a criminal offence to breach a non-molestation order, and making common assault an arrestable offence. Beyond the law itself, the Government have had a national domestic violence delivery plan since 2005, through which we are seeking to make sure that domestic violence is being tackled through all of our mainstream services. The plan outlines how we will ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice while providing the best possible help for victims and their children.
	In relation to the best interests of a child, existing legislation already places a duty on key persons and agencies who come into contact with children to make arrangements to safeguard and promote their welfare. Section 11 of the Children Act 2004 places a duty on those key persons and bodies to make arrangements to ensure that in discharging their functions, they have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. The Government have defined safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children in statutory guidance as: protecting children from maltreatment; preventing impairment of childrens health or development; ensuring that children are growing up in circumstances consistent with the provision of safe and effective care; and undertaking that role so as to enable those children to have optimum life chances and to enter adulthood successfully.
	Lord Laird also asked about the certificate of approval scheme for non-nationals wishing to marry or enter into a civil partnership. This was introduced under the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 in order to reduce the number of sham marriages, which were an abuse of immigration control and which were rightly a subject of public concern. The scheme has been very successful in meeting its aims. Section 24 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 requires registrars who have reasonable grounds for suspecting that a marriage will be a sham marriage to notify the Home Secretary without delay. The number of such notifications rose from 752 in 2001 to a peak of 3578 in 2004, but following the introduction of the certificate of approval scheme on 1 February 2005 there was a significant fall to totals of 452 in 2005, 282 in 2006 and 382 in 2007. The scheme has been challenged in the courts in the case of Baiai, and its operation has been amended so as to be compliant with the findings of the High Court3 and Court of Appeal4. The Government are now carefully considering the decision of the House of Lords in this case.
	The final two parts of this Question relate to data protection legislation. The Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) gives effect in United Kingdom law to the 1995 EC Data Protection Directive. Under the DPA, the data subject's consent is required before personal and sensitive information can be processed. In addition to this, data controllers are required to comply with eight data protection principles when they process personal and sensitive data unless they are exempt from one or all of them. We believe the current framework for processing personal data and sensitive data found at Schedules 2 and 3 respectively of the DPA is stringent enough to ensure personal and sensitive data are processed in a fair and lawful manner, balancing the privacy rights of individuals with the legitimate needs of organisations to make use of such data.
	Current exemptions to the disclosure of personal information include those for national security and the prevention or detection of crime. There are no plans to remove the current list of exemptions.
	In Question HL3489, Lord Laird asked whether the Government plan to abolish all oaths imposed by state bodies. The Government are content that current practice in relation to the swearing of oaths  whether in court, upon the acceptance of public office or otherwise  is appropriate and compatible with the freedom of thought, conscience and religion under Article 9 of the Convention rights. In particular, should a persons beliefs prevent them swearing an oath, they may instead choose to affirm. The Government therefore have no plans to change the law in this respect.
	Lord Laird in his Question HL3490 asked whether the Government will extend freedom of information legislation to cover information required for the exercise or protection of human rights. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 applies to all information held by the public authorities that are subject to the Act. Such bodies are legally obliged to respond in accordance with the Act to any request for information that they hold. Provided the request is in writing and sufficiently clear to enable the public authority to identify the information, the public authority must provide it unless it is covered by one of the exemptions set out in the Act, or the cost of identifying, locating and extracting the information would exceed the appropriate limit set out in the fees regulations. Information required for the exercise or protection of human rights is treated no differently from any other information: if it is held by a public authority that is subject to the Act, the response to any request for the information would be governed by the Act as it stands, and there is therefore no need for the Act to be extended in order to apply to such information.
	Lord Laird further asked whether the Government will add consideration of the best interests of children to the limitations on the rights to freedom of expression. That freedom, as contained in Article 10 of the Convention rights, must already be exercised subject to certain responsibilities and restrictions.
	The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
	Given that these limitations are prescribed in the ECHR, the Government have no plans to change or augment them in the Human Rights Act, nor to seek the amendment of the Convention.
	Lord Laird asked in relation to this Question whether the Government intends to extend the law on incitement to hatred, which currently covers incitement to hatred on the basis of race and religion. The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 introduced a prohibition on incitement to hatred on the basis of sexual orientation, which we plan to bring into force in the autumn. The Government have considered whether there is a need for similar laws to cover other groups, such as transgendered and disabled people. Although these groups are vulnerable to crime, and perhaps crime motivated by hatred, we have seen no compelling evidence that there is systematic incitement to hatred of these groups. We intend to keep under review whether there is a need for legislation to cover any other vulnerable group.
	In Question HL3491, Lord Laird asked whether the Government will reverse the emphasis of the right to freedom of association and peaceful assembly to make association more important that peaceful assembly. Article 11 of the Convention rights, in which this right is contained, specifies no priority or emphasis between the two aspects of the right, and the Government does not see what would be achieved by introducing one.
	In relation to the second part of this Question, there is already a wide range of rights for individuals to belong to a trade union, to use a trade union's services and to participate in a union's activities. These are mostly set out in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. These include rights not to be dismissed or suffer other detriment on these grounds. These rights, which are found in Sections 146 and 152 of the 1992 Act, were strengthened by the Employment Relations Act 2004. Among other things, the 2004 Act made it unlawful for employers to offer inducements to workers not to belong to a trade union, not to participate in a union's activities at an appropriate time and not to use a union's services at an appropriate time.
	The freedom for individuals to take industrial action is also recognised in British law. Most notably, Section 236 of the1992 Act stipulates that a court cannot order an employee to do any work and to attend his workplace. In Section 238A of the 1992 Act there are also significant protections against dismissal for those taking official and lawfully organised industrial action. Individuals and their trade unions also have important rights in respect of collective bargaining. For example, Schedule A1 of the 1992 Act, which was inserted by the Employment Relations Act 1999, provides a statutory procedure whereby trade unions may be recognised by an employer for collective bargaining purpose where a majority of the relevant workforce supports it.
	Part (c) of this Question covers the same ground as part (c) of the previous Question.
	Finally, the Government have not granted, nor do they intend to grant, trade union rights to the Armed Forces. Safeguarding the welfare and well-being of members of the Armed Forces is an integral part of the duty of the chain of command  a duty that is taken very seriously. When service men and women consider themselves wronged, they have a statutory right to complain, ultimately to the Defence Council. Service personnel may join trade and professional associations, as well as organisations representing their interests, such as the Forces Pensions Society. The forces families federations represent the views of the wider service community. The Government therefore do not consider there is a distinct role and need for another body in the shape of a trade union or federation for the Armed Forces.
	In Question HL3492, Lord Laird asked whether the Government will incorporate in domestic law the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. The Government have no plans to do so. Lord Laird further asked whether the Government will limit cultural, ethnic, linguistic, religious and communal minority rights so as not to conflict with the rights and freedoms of others. In general, our law does not recognise general rights of these sorts, with the exception of the freedom to manifest ones religion or beliefs under Article 9 of the Convention rights. This freedom is not absolute, and may be limited to the extent necessary in a democratic society for purposes that include the interests of public safety, the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
	In relation to the third part of this Question, the Government have no plans to introduce specific protection against coercive cultural assimilation by public bodies. Government policies are broadly supportive of cohesion and integration within a diverse society. The Government similarly have no plans to create a specific right to education in minority languages. However, the devolved Administrations do make provision where appropriate for education in our national minority languages.
	Finally, the Government have no plans to treat sexual orientation as a basis for national minority status. The Government interpret the concept of national minority in the previously mentioned framework convention as applying to minority racial groups within the meaning of the Race Relations Act 1976.
	In respect of Question HL3517, although there is no absolute right within British law to British nationality, there are provisions about the acquisition of citizenship by a stateless person which enable us to meet our obligations under the 1961 United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Under Section 1 of the British Nationality Act 1981, a child born in the United Kingdom to a parent who is a British citizen or settled in the United Kingdom will become a British citizen. Section 1 also provides that any child born here who was not British at birth but whose parent becomes British or settled after their birth to be registered as a British citizen while a minor. Similarly, any child born in the United Kingdom and who lives here for the first 10 years of his or her life may register as a British citizen. Schedule 2 of the Act also provides that a person under the age of 22 who has lived in the United Kingdom for a continuous period of five years may register as a British citizen; this provision is more generous than that prescribed in Article 1 of the United Nations Convention, which permits states to impose a 10-year residence requirement. The Government believe that it is reasonable to ensure that those who benefit from British citizenship demonstrate a real link with this country through a substantial period of residence here, in addition to the location of their birth.
	Further to this, there are also provisions in the 1981 Act allowing for the registration of stateless children of British nationals, and for the registration of people born stateless before 1983 who can demonstrate one of a set of defined connections to the United Kingdom or its current or former overseas possessions or territories. There are provisions in the 1981 Act which allow the Home Secretary to deprive a person of their British citizenship. If this is done on the basis that it is conducive to the public good, there is a requirement that the person should not be left stateless as a result.
	The British Nationality Act 1981, in providing for the acquisition of citizenship since 1983, does not discriminate on grounds other than nationality. Previous legislation was discriminatory in that British women were not able to pass on citizenship to their children born in the United Kingdom. The 1981 Act provided that, from 1 January 1983, women could pass on citizenship in the same way as men. This was not made retrospective at the time, because of complications which could have arisen in suddenly giving people, many of whom were adults, British nationality. Section 4C of the 1981 Act provides for people born to British mothers between 1961 and 1983, who would have become British automatically if women had been able to pass on citizenship in the same way as men at that time, to be registered as British citizens. We now recognise that those born before 1961 are at a disadvantage compared to the children of British men and are planning to amend this section to remove the 1961 cut-off date, so that people born before that date will be able to apply for registration. This amendment will form part of the Citizenship, Immigration and Borders Bill, which is in the draft legislative programme for the next Session.
	Lord Laird in his Question HL3518 asked about lifelong learning. The Government recognise the importance of proper provision in this area, which is why the Education and Skills Bill currently before Parliament strengthens the framework for the provision through the Learning and Skills Council of adult literacy, numeracy and first level 2 qualifications. Other provisions in the Bill clarify the framework for post-16 education. As described in the draft legislative programme, the Government plan in the next Session to provide a statutory basis for the apprenticeship programme, creating a new national apprenticeships service, establishing the first statutory entitlement to apprenticeships for all suitably qualified young people, and ensuring that careers teachers and advisers provide comprehensive information about apprenticeships.
	Lord Laird also asked about private educational institutions. All independent schools in England must be registered with the Department for Children, Schools and Families, and reach and maintain standards set out in the Education (Independent School Standards) (England) Regulations 2003, as amended. The standards include the requirement for independent schools to promote principles which ensure that their pupils:
	are able to distinguish right from wrong and respect the law; accept responsibility for their behaviour, show initiative and contribute to community life;have a broad general knowledge of public institutions and services in England; andacquire an appreciation of and respect for their own and other cultures in a way that promotes tolerance and harmony between different cultural traditions.
	Private further and higher education institutions that receive government funding, as well as being companies subject to the usual provisions of company law, are also obliged to respect conditions placed on that funding, which would include, for example, the principles of equality and diversity. Such institutions are also bound to follow the requirements laid down in their founding documents, whether they were founded under an Act of Parliament, by royal charter, or as a company limited by guarantee.
	In respect of the next part of the Question, the right to universal educational access is both established and realised. The Governments educational policy is geared towards promoting educational achievement for all children and young people, through access to appropriate resources and support.
	Lord Laird also asked whether the Government will create extensive rights for children in education. Children are already afforded rights of many types in their education. For example, the national curriculum entitles children to a balanced and broadly-based curriculum that prepares them for later life. Children also have rights around equality, safety and well-being, both in education and beyond. Children of course also have the benefit of the rights protected under the Human Rights Act
	Finally, this Government believe in allowing parents choice in the way in which their children are educated. In relation to specific aspects of education, parents already have the right to withdraw children from all or any part of sex and relationship education, other than that required as part of statutory science. Government guidance also states that schools should also consult parents when developing their sex and relationship education policy to ensure that they develop policies which reflect parents wishes and the culture of the community they serve. Similarly, parents have the right to withdraw their children from all or any part of religious education. They do not have to give a reason for withdrawal and the school is expected to comply with the request. The right of withdrawal applies to all schools, including those with a religious character (sometimes known as faith schools). Parents can also withdraw their child from all or any part of collective worship.
	In relation to standards of living in Lord Lairds Question HL3519, the Government have no plans to alter the law in this area. It is, however, the Governments aim that everyone should have access to a decent home at a price they can afford. To help deliver this, the Government have introduced new statutory standards for housing in April 2006  the housing health and safety rating system. The Government are also committed to achieving the decent homes standard which will ensure that every social home meets at least a minimum standard, and that improvements in housing conditions in the private sector are targeted on vulnerable households.
	In Question HL3520, Lord Laird asked whether the Government intend to alter the law on reproductive healthcare. As noted above in relation to Question HL3464, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is currently progressing through Parliament; this Bill updates the regulation of assisted reproduction and embryo research in the light of changes in science and society since the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.
	The Government are committed to the realisation of the right of everyone, reflected in Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. Information about how the Government are working to realise this right was presented to the United Nations in July 2007 in the Fifth Periodic Report of the United Kingdom, the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories under the ICESCR5.
	Lord Laird also asked about emergency medical treatment and essential primary healthcare. Primary care trusts must, to the extent that they consider necessary to meet all reasonable requirements, exercise their powers so as to provide primary medical services within their area, or secure their provision within their area. Primary medical services contracts set out those essential services that must be provided to patients. Under their contracts, general practices are required to treat anyone, regardless of whether they are registered with the practice, if they require emergency or immediately necessary treatment.
	In the final part of this Question, Lord Laird asked about the access of children to information on social and health issues. The Government are committed to the provision of Personal, Social, Health Education (PSHE) in schools and recognise its valuable contribution to the personal, social and moral development of pupils. High quality PSHE is key to meeting the five Every Child Matters national outcomes for children and an important part of meeting the new duty to promote well-being. The Government believes that recent changes, such as the revised secondary curriculum, the new duty to promote wellbeing and the emphasis on Every Child Matters outcomes give PSHE a secure place in the curriculum. Currently there are no plans to change the statutory status of PSHE. Many aspects of PSHE already have a statutory basis  sex education, drug education and careers. In addition there are number of requirements which support PSHE in school such as the need for policies on bullying, promoting race relations and child protection.
	In relation to Lord Lairds Question HL3521, there are currently no proposals to create a legal right to housing for everyone or to make public authorities responsible for housing those evicted by the courts.
	Housing legislation that applies to England and Wales already provides a right to housing for people who have become homeless through no fault of their own and who meet certain criteria. Those criteria are that the person must be eligible for assistance (certain categories of person from abroad are ineligible), and that he or she has a priority need for accommodation. The priority need categories include applicants whose household includes a dependant child, pregnant woman or someone who is vulnerable for some reason. A person also has a priority need if he is homeless or likely to become homeless within 28 days as a result of an emergency such as flood, fire or other disaster. Where these criteria are met, the local authority has a continuing duty to secure suitable accommodation until a settled home can be offered. In most cases, the offer of a settled home that brings the homelessness duty to an end is an offer of social housing.
	The legislation also provides a right for people (whether homeless or not) to apply for social housing to any local housing authority in England or Wales, and to have that application considered by the local authority in accordance with the authoritys allocation scheme. Anyone is eligible for an allocation of accommodation, with the exception of certain persons from abroad specified in regulations and persons whom an authority decides to treat as ineligible because of serious unacceptable behaviour. People on a low income who need financial help may also be able to get housing benefit.
	In relation to Question HL3522, the mission of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is to enable everyone to live within our environmental limits. Two key cross-government priorities are to secure a healthy natural environment for today and the future, and to lead the global effort to avoid dangerous climate change. For example, the Climate Change Bill provides a clear, credible, long-term framework for the UK to achieve its goals of reducing carbon dioxide emissions and will ensure that steps are taken towards adapting to the impacts of climate change.
	The Defra website6, in addition to the websites of various agencies7, contains extensive information on how Defra's policies on resources and environmental systems  water, land and air  are delivered on the ground. The Environmental Information Regulations also give the public rights of access to environmental information.
	In relation to planning decisions, the Planning Bill will introduce a new single consent regime for nationally significant infrastructure. A key objective of the Planning Bill is to enhance public participation in decisions on major infrastructure. There are clear rights and duties for consultation and participation on the face of the Bill. These include a duty on Ministers to consult on the new national policy statements, and a statutory duty on promoters to consult local authorities and local communities on any potential application. The examination stage for proposals will also be easier and quicker for the public to engage with.
	In Question HL3553, Lord Laird asked about various aspects of the right to work. Information on the Governments realisation of the right to work (Article 6) and the right to fair conditions of employment (Article 7) is set out in its 2007 report under the ICESCR8. In addition, the Employment Bill currently before Parliament reforms the existing law in relation to a range of areas of employment protection.
	In relation to equal conditions of work for women and men, a range of legislation founded on the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 prohibits most kinds of discrimination between women and men in the workplace. Noted above, in relation to Question HL3462, were the recent announcements by the Government in relation to laws on equality and discrimination.
	Legal migrant workers have the same employment rights and recourses as their UK equivalents. The Government are keen to ensure that migrant workers coming to the UK are aware of their employment rights and responsibilities. We have co-operated with the Portuguese, Polish and Lithuanian Governments on information leaflets for their nationals, which are available from the website of the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR)9. We have also produced a basic, one page Working in the UK: Know your rights and where to get help and advice leaflet available in Bulgarian, English, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Romanian and Slovakian.
	In relation to rest and leisure, the statutory entitlement to paid leave increased to 4.8 weeks (24 days if you work a five day week) from 1 October 2007 and will further increase to 5.6 weeks (28 days if you work a five day week) from 1 April 2009, pro-rata for those working part-time.
	The Government have embarked on comprehensive reform of state and private pensions. A key objective of pensions reform is to deliver fair outcomes, to women and carers in particular. The Pensions Act 2007 has made a number of changes to the rules for state pension. The changes will make it easier to build up state pension provision, improving state pension coverage and outcomes for women and carers in particular and providing a more solid state foundation on which to make private pension saving. The current Pensions Bill 2007 contains measures intended to encourage and enable more people to save for their retirement. These measures will ensure that all workers have access to workplace pension saving, providing equality of opportunity for men and women to build up a private pension.
	Finally, in relation to the fair treatment of pregnant women and workers with children, the policy statement Success At Work, published in March 2006 by the then-Department for Trade and Industry, sets out the current provisions for and planned extensions to family leave rights. In addition, in November 2007, the Government commissioned Imelda Walsh to conduct a review to assess how to extend the right to request to parents of older children. Ms Walsh's report10 was published on 15 May 2008 recommending extending the age cut-off to parents of children aged 16 and under. The Government accepted these recommendations and launched a consultation11 on their implementation on 26 August.
	In Question HL3554, Lord Laird asked about the right to social security. There is no single right to social security in our domestic law. Entitlement conditions for social security benefits are set out in a large number of statutes. Changes and additions to this body of legislation are frequently made over the course of a Parliament. In making such changes, full consideration is given to any relevant equality and human rights issues that might arise.
	In Question HL3555, Lord Laird asked about informal justice mechanisms. The Government are committed to putting victims at the centre of the criminal justice system, and have introduced a restorative justice strategy. Restorative justice is about offenders making amends directly to the people or organisations they have harmed. The Government support restorative justice because it gives victims a greater voice in the criminal justice system, allows victims to receive an explanation and more meaningful reparation from offenders, makes offenders accountable by allowing them to take responsibility for their action, and builds community confidence that offenders are making amends for their wrongdoing.
	Lord Laird then asked about the appointments of those involved in the administration of justice; this can include administrative staff in the justice system as well as candidates for judicial office. In relation to the former, all those in the administration of justice in Her Majestys Courts Service are recruited or appointed on the basis of a core competence framework which provides fair, consistent and unbiased criteria for choosing who to recruit or appoint. That policy is based on the fundamental principle enshrined in the Civil Service Commissioners' Recruitment Code of selection for appointment on merit on the basis of fair and open competition.
	In relation to judicial office holders, the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) is an independent non-departmental public body (NDPB) set up by the Constitutional Reform Act in 2005 to select candidates for judicial office in England and Wales. It does so on merit, through fair and open competition, from the widest range of eligible candidates. The appointment process remains underpinned by the principle of selection on merit. The JAC defines merit on the basis of five core qualities and abilities which it has identified as being needed for judicial office, and on which it consulted widely before commencing operation. The JAC was set up in order to maintain and strengthen judicial independence by taking responsibility for selecting candidates for judicial office out of the hands of the Lord Chancellor and making the appointments process clearer and more accountable.
	In Question HL3556, Lord Laird asked whether we will remove civil rights from the ambit of the right to a fair trial. This right, as reflected in Article 6 of the Convention rights, says that in the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The term civil rights and obligations has an autonomous meaning in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, reflecting a category of non-criminal proceedings that are covered by Article 6. The Government have no plans to change this.
	Lord Laird then asked about the right of appeal to a higher tribunal. Although a right of appeal is not required in most circumstances by Article 6, it is an important part of allowing a person to challenge the outcome of a trial; in particular, it represents a way in which a person may use the Human Rights Act to challenge the conduct or outcome of a trial as incompatible with their Convention rights. Article 2 of the Seventh Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to appeal specifically in criminal matters, subject to certain exceptions. The Government have previously indicated that they intend to sign and ratify the Seventh Protocol once certain provisions of our domestic law that are incompatible with another of the rights that it protects have been modified.
	Taking Lord Lairds Question about the provision of information on rights in appropriate and accessible language to refer specifically to criminal trials, Article 6(3) of the Convention rights states that everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; [...] to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court. These obligations are reflected in the national agreement on the use of interpreters and translators in investigations and proceedings with the criminal justice system, which is applicable in court proceedings.
	On the right to silence, we are satisfied that the law on adverse inferences, as set out in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, contains sufficient safeguards for the defence. The Government therefore have no plans to legislate on the subject.
	On trial by jury, the Government have no intention of making provision for trials on indictment to take place without a jury in any circumstances beyond those for which provision is already made in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004.
	The power to compel witnesses rests with the court and is exercisable on the application of either the prosecution or the defence. The relevant legislation is the Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965, as amended by the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, and the Magistrates Courts Act 1980. The Government have no plans for further legislation in the area.
	The admission of evidence is a matter for courts to determine. Courts and tribunals are themselves public authorities under the Human Rights Act, and have the obligation not to act incompatibly with the Convention rights. They would therefore consider the overall fairness of a trial when making decisions on the admission of evidence.
	In relation to part (h) of Question HL3556, about the availability of interpreters in custody, I refer to my response to part (c) of Question HL3461 on the same subject. Similarly, on part (i) of this Question, I refer to the response to the more extensive Question HL3619 below.
	Finally, Lord Laird asked whether the Government will ensure there are no controls on lawyers. On the assumption that it is the criminal trial process referred to, the conduct of the trial is again a matter for the court to determine, taking into account the obligation to ensure the trial is fair.
	In Question HL3557, Lord Laird asked about humane conditions of detention. The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) is committed to providing decent and humane conditions for all those committed to custody. All accommodation must be certified by the area manager as complying with minimum standards of space, furnishing, heat and light. There are national standards, which are monitored by audit, covering other aspects of decency and humane treatment such as access to showers, sanitation, clean clothing and medical care, provision of meals and regime activity.
	Lord Laird specifically asked whether the Government will ensure there is no deprivation or restriction of any human rights except to the extent demonstrably necessitated by the fact of detention. The Government accept this principle: as prisons are public authorities for the purposes of the Human Rights Act, they are required to respect the Convention rights insofar as is compatible with secure detention.
	Lord Laird also asked about the provision of information on the reasons for deprivation of liberty. In addition to the response to Question HL3461 above in relation to the communication of reasons for arrest and immigration detention, offenders in prison are sentenced by the courts who explain the purpose of the sentence. At first reception, prison staff will check that there is authority to detain. During the induction process and beyond, prison staff inform prisoners of how the sentence will be enforced, explain the calculation of the sentence length and the date of earliest release.
	In relation to treatment and support for rehabilitation into society, Her Majesty's Prison Service's (HMPS) statement of purpose includes a commitment to help prisoners lead law-abiding and useful lives in custody and after release. In 2007-2008, HMPS delivered 6,960 living skills programmes, 1,037 sex offender treatment programmes and 7,412 drug treatment programmes. HMPS works in partnership with the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills and the Learning and Skills Council to provide educational and training opportunities to help prisoners gain employment on release.
	In relation to legal and medical assistance, I refer to my response to Lord Lairds Question HL3461 above. Each prison has one or more chaplains to offer pastoral care and support to prisoners of any faith. Prisoners have 24-hour confidential access to the Samaritans as well as trained prisoner listeners. Prison wing staff, including personal officers, also perform this role for individual prisoners.
	£5 million is spent each year to help offenders maintain positive ties with their children and families. We are developing a national framework which will aim to improve support for the families of offenders at all stages, from arrest to end of sentence and beyond, setting expectations of local partners. This will build on the progress prisons have made: most now have a visitor centre outside the gate, providing information and support for families. Over 100 prisons in England and Wales offer supervised play areas for some visits. Special visits are arranged which focus on the needs of the child. There is also provision for mothers to have young children with them in prison, where this is in the interests of the child.
	Last year, the Department for Children, Schools and Families and the Ministry of Justice conducted a priority joint review to improve support for the children of offenders. It concluded that parental imprisonment is a valuable opportunity to identify children at risk of poor outcomes and to offer them support. The findings, which were published in parallel with the Think Family: Improving the Life Chances of Families at Risk review, on 10 January 2008, can be found on the website of the Social Exclusion Task Force12.
	NOMS is already committed to assisting the reintegration and resettlement of former prisoners. The offender management model provides any prisoner serving 12 months or more with a named offender manager whose remit is to assist their return to the community and to provide continuity of supervision while they are on licence after release. Prisons try to assist as many prisoners as possible to find accommodation and employment on release. In 2007-08, HMPS exceeded its targets for both employment (27.3 per cent against a target of 25 per cent) and accommodation (85.4 per cent against a target of 74 per cent).
	Lord Lairds Question HL3558 asked about the rights of victims and witnesses. Statutory rights for victims, which apply to all victims who make an allegation to the police regardless of any other factor, are provided for under the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime. The code is made under Section 32 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 and requires criminal justice agencies to provide certain levels of service to victims. The Government have no current plans to alter the code of practice. However, the Government are committed to ensuring that witnesses receive a comparably high level of service as victims do, and have introduced a number of reforms to achieve this, such as the introduction of 165 dedicated witness care units across England and Wales.
	In Question HL3617, Lord Laird asked about children and vulnerable adults as witnesses and victims of crime. In their draft legislative programme, the Government have indicated that they plan to legislate during the next Session of Parliament to amend and extend special measures for victims and intimidated witnesses, such as live links and screens round the witness box. The issue of cross-examination of young witnesses was discussed in the consultation paper Improving the criminal trial process for young witnesses published in June 2007. The responses to the consultation paper are currently being analysed and a government response will be issued.
	In Question HL3618, Lord Laird asked whether we will require full disclosure of the truth relating to relevant crimes or human rights violations. We have no plans to legislate at this time, although the Government are committed to examining the wider issues of handling the past in Northern Ireland.
	Lord Laird then asked whether we will ensure necessary care and support is provided in accordance with the needs of victims. I noted the existence of the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime in my response to Question HL3558 above. The Government are firmly committed to ensuring victims receive care and support that is tailored to their needs. The code itself requires agencies to provide a range of support, advice and information for victims. In addition, there are other non-statutory means of support for victims. Criminal justice processes have been redefined around the needs of victims, for example through the introduction of the aforementioned 165 joint police and Crown Prosecution Service witness care units, which provide a single point of contact and support for victims and witnesses attending court. Similarly, the Government provide funding to a wide range of voluntary sector organisations supporting victims of crime.
	Lord Laird then asked about the investigation of missing persons, which already occurs. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) published in 2005 Guidance on the Management, Recording and Investigation of Missing Persons13. The ACPO defines a missing person as anyone whose whereabouts is unknown whatever the circumstances of disappearance. They will be considered missing until located and their well-being or otherwise established. In terms of missing persons investigations, there is a range of national statutory and non-governmental organisations that play a role in the prevention and management of missing persons cases, and a large number of organisations offer assistance in matters relating to missing persons. As well as being the primary investigators of missing persons cases, the police are also the primary co-ordinators of the response from these other agencies.
	In relation to the further Questions asked by Lord Laird asked about victims of crime, the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime discussed above sets out the standards of service that victims should receive from criminal justice system (CJS) agencies. Because of this, it has to define a victim as someone who has made an allegation to the police  otherwise they would not come into contact with the police or other agencies. However, the Code does make clear in section 3.10 that it is immaterial whether the police believe the allegation or whether an offender is subsequently charged  all that matters is the fact of giving an allegation. Outside statutory support, voluntary sector services do not discriminate on the basis of whether a victim has reported a crime: Victim Support, for example, is the national charity that offers practical and emotional support to victims, and will do so regardless of whether a victim has reported a crime.
	Lord Laird asked further Questions about children in the justice system in Question HL3619.
	We believe that the best interests of children are already taken into account. Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) states that in all actions undertaken in a court of law the best interests of the child are a primary consideration. As the criminal court and the criminal justice system need to take a whole range of factors into account, such as the need to address offending or reoffending behaviour, we believe that achieving this aim acts in the best interest of the young person. It is also the duty of the court to take into account the needs and interests of victims and the wider community as well as those of the offender. Welfare clearly has a key role to play within the sentencing framework and courts already have a duty to have regard to this through Section 44 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. We have clarified this by providing a purpose of sentencing for young people which places a duty on the court to have equal regard to:
	(a) the principal aim of the youth justice system (prevention of offending or reoffending by young people)(b) the welfare of the young person in accordance with Section 44 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, and(c) the purposes of sentencing.
	The Government do not intend to change the age of criminal responsibility. The Government believe in relation to England and Wales that commencing criminal responsibility from the age of 10 helps children to develop a sense of personal responsibility for their behaviour. At this age children can generally differentiate between bad behaviour and serious wrongdoing, and it is not in the interests of justice, victims or the children themselves to prevent offending being challenged through formal criminal justice processes. However, interventions are intended to be rehabilitative rather than punitive, and a significant role of the local multiagency youth offending teams in England and Wales is to work closely with children beginning to display offending behaviour to prevent it escalating. As part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 the Government have also introduced a further out-of-court disposal, the youth conditional caution. The aim of the youth conditional caution is to reduce the number of children being taken to court for relatively low-level offences by creating an alternative, robust mechanism for bringing young offenders to account and addressing the causes of their behaviour.
	Further to my response to Question HL3461, the principle that children are detained or imprisoned only as a measure of last resort is already enshrined in law. Section 152(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 states that the court must not pass a custodial sentence (which includes custodial sentences for young offenders  section 305 of the 2003 Act and section 76 of the Sentencing Act) unless it is of the opinion that the offence, or the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it, was so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified for the offence. We will be supplementing this with an additional requirement for young people set out in the Criminal Justice & Immigration Act. This will mean that, when passing a discretionary custodial sentence on an offender under the age of 18, the court must, as well as the obligations set out by Section 152, also include a statement that it is of the opinion that the sentence of a youth rehabilitation order with intensive supervision and surveillance or fostering cannot be justified, and why it is of that opinion.
	In Question HL3620, Lord Laird asked about participation in public life. The Government are keen to encourage those from all backgrounds to participate in public life and political affairs. It is for that reason that they have adopted initiatives such as the use of women-only electoral shortlists designed to create more women MPs and local councillors and the BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) Women Councillors Taskforce that is chaired by Baroness Uddin and is intended to encourage more women from BAME backgrounds to become involved in local politics. Similarly, the Council of Europe Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in Public Life gives foreign residents rights to participate fully in the affairs of their local community. Although the United Kingdom has not ratified the Convention, we do comply with its Chapters A and B, and have announced our intention to ratify the Convention in due course.
	The Government appreciate the importance of having a balance of men and women holding domestic and international public position. Public appointments will, so far as the application of positive action provisions to them is concerned, be treated similarly to employment relationships in the Equality Bill. In relation specifically to the House of Commons, the Speaker in a Statement to the House on 22 July accepted the proposal of the Prime Minister to call a Speakers Conference to consider the representation of women and ethnic minorities in the House of Commons.
	Regarding Lord Lairds question about the equal representation of men and women in the formulation of Government policy, this is taken to mean the composition of the Civil Service, which of course supports the policy process. The composition of central government departments by headcount is 46.8 per cent male and 53.2 per cent female14. The Civil Service also has a published diversity strategy (10-point plan on delivering a diverse Civil Service) which sets targets for the representation of women in the Senior Civil Service.
	In Question HL3621, Lord Laird asked whether we will provide the right to a passport for citizens. United Kingdom passports are currently issued under the royal prerogative. In the White Paper, The Governance of Britain  Constitutional Renewal (March 2008), the Government confirmed their view that they should remove the prerogative in relation to passports and announced their intention to introduce comprehensive legislation on the procedures for issuing passports.
	The Government have no plans at this time to alter any laws on the freedom of movement, whether generally or in relation to specific groups. However, we are in the process of ratifying the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings which will further strengthen and widen our support mechanisms for victims of human trafficking.
	In Lord Lairds Question HL3664 he asked about the recognition of both settled and nomadic lifestyles. The Government believe everyone has the right to a decent home, whichever lifestyle they choose. Planning policy for Gypsies and Travellers is set out in ODPM Circular 01/2006. Whether or not someone is defined as having a nomadic habit of life is determined on a case-by-case basis, and each planning application is determined on its own merits, in accordance with national planning guidance and local policies in the development plan.
	Finally, in Question HL3665, Lord Laird returned to the rights of the child. The Government have signed and ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Since the ratification, the Government have been implementing the Convention through a mix of legislative provisions and policy initiatives, for example, the Children Act 2004, Every Child Matters and, most recently, the wealth of initiatives set out in the Childrens Plan.
	Further to my response to HL3488 and HL3619 on the best interests of children, the Children Act 1989 has at its foundation the requirement that the welfare of the child must be the court's paramount consideration in any decision relating to his or her upbringing. Under the Act, a court must have regard in particular to the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in the light of age and understanding), the child's needs and how they are to be met, relevant personal background, any harm suffered or risk of harm, and the likely risk of any change of circumstances. Under Section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, a court or adoption agency that is considering a matter relating to the adoption of a child must have as its paramount consideration the childs welfare throughout its life.
	The Government are committed to involving children and young people in decision-making at a national and local level. Listening to children, young people and their families and ensuring that that policies and services are designed around their needs is at the very heart of the reform programme enshrined within the Children Act 2004 and Every Child Matters: Change for Children Programme. The Childcare Act 2006 requires local authorities in England, when discharging their duty to promote the well-being of young children, to have regard to such information about the views of young children.
	The Government have also established a range of mechanisms, guidance and legal requirements which mean that pupils views and interests are heard and valued in the school context:
	the Education and Inspections Act 2006, which provides that a governing body must have a school behaviour policy, and requires them to consult pupils before making or revising that policy;the Education Act 2002, which provides that guidance relating to duties performed by the local authority must provide for pupils views to be considered in light of their age and understanding; andthe Education Act 2005, which requires inspectors to have regard to views of registered pupils when conducting school inspections in England.
	School councils and student voice more generally are an important part of the day-to-day life of the school. Good mechanisms for student voice result in greater confidence and self-esteem among pupils as well and, it is believed, have positive effects on other areas such as behaviour and attainment. In the curriculum, pupil voice particularly links to participation and political literacy in citizenship education. Some schools, for example, have citizenship boards in each classroom, maintained by the school council, documenting pupil achievements in and out of school.
	The Government are also undertaking a wide programme to help ensure children grow up in a stable, safe and secure family environment. Through funding voluntary and community sector organisations, the Government already provide information, advice and support to parents experiencing relationship problems. Children's centres and extended schools identify parents experiencing difficulties and signpost them to more specialist support where appropriate.
	The Government have also invested in training over 2000 practitioners to deliver evidence-based parenting programmes in order to improve parenting skills. The Government are continuing to invest a further £60 million over three years to roll out further parenting programme training through the Parenting Early Intervention Programme to support parents of children at risk of negative outcomes, and £34 million over the next three years to provide two expert parenting advisers in every local authority, who will also be trained in delivering parenting programmes.
	The Government also have a wide programme of measures to improve child safety in the family home, including midwives and health visitors advising parents on how to make their homes safer, a new £18 million home safety equipment scheme and a £9 million child safety communications strategy.
	We have already strengthened the legal protection of children in relation to physical punishment. Section 58 of the Children Act 2004, combined with the revised Crown Prosecution Service charging standard, strengthened the protection of children in relation to physical punishment so that assaults by parents or by adults acting in loco parentis against children which occasion actual or grievous bodily harm or which constitute cruelty can no longer be defended as reasonable punishment. That defence is now only available in cases of common assault where any injury is transient and trifling. The charging standard has been revised: any assault against a child that results in more than a temporary reddening of the skin would be charged as occasioning actual bodily harm or a more serious offence.
	The first ever national play strategy for England sets out the Governments new agenda on play in full. Running from April to July 2008, Fair Play: a consultation on the play strategy set out how government departments propose to work together, and with partners, to create more and better opportunities for all children to play, with a childrens version of the consultation running from May until August 2008. The consultation included proposals to encourage more child-friendly public space. An action plan setting out next steps for the play strategy will be published in the autumn.
	The Government have made a substantial investment in providing children with safe, stimulating places to play. In the Childrens Plan, we announced a new investment package of £225 million over the next three years to support local authorities, parents and communities in providing safe and fun play facilities for children. In April, an additional £10 million was pledged, underlining the importance of play and how it should be taken seriously by every council in the country. An offer of capital funding will be made to every local authority in England by 2010-11, to support the delivery of stimulating local places to play. The £235 million will fund 30 new adventure playgrounds or play parks, and up to 3,500 play areas nationally will be rebuilt or renewed. Thirty local authorities will be designated play pathfinders, each receiving around £2 million capital funding, plus significant revenue funding. Twenty pathfinders were announced in April 2008, and a further 10 will be announced in the autumn following a bidding round which is open to the remaining 130 authorities.
	As well as launching a childrens version of Fair Play, the Government have made it clear that all local authorities must work with children, young people and their communities to develop innovative play sites. These should contain challenging equipment and natural landscapes, giving all children, including those with a disability, an opportunity to play actively outdoors.
	Lord Laird also asked about the recruitment of people under the age of 18 into the Armed Forces. I understand that Baroness Taylor of Bolton set out the position in relation to this area in her Written Answer to Lord Laird of 19 February 2008 (Official Report, col. WA30).
	UKHL 132 [2006] EWHC 823 (Admin)3 [2006] EWHC 823 (Admin)4 [2007] EWCA Civ 4785 http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/fifthperiodicreport 270707.htm; Article 12 from page 1156 http://www.defra.gov.uk/7 e.g. the Environment Agency at http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/8 supra note 5 from page 859 http://www.berr.gov.uk/employment/migrant-workers/index.html10 http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file46092.pdf11 http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file47434.pdf12 http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/~/media/assets/www.cabinet office.gov.uk/social_exclusion_task_force/think_families/offenders_review_080110%20pdf.ashx13 http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/missing_persons _2005_24x02x05.pdf14 based on the Office for National Statistics Public Sector Employment Q1 2008 figures at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/pse0608.pdf